In June my website, which was previously called ‘Happiness of Being’, was renamed ‘Sri Ramana Teachings’, so in August this blog was likewise renamed, and the respective URLs were also changed accordingly. Since the homepage had hardly changed since the website was launched in 2006, it was also in need of updating, so I have drafted a new homepage with a more detailed introduction to and overview of Bhagavan’s teachings, which I hope to post within the next few days, and in the meanwhile I am posting here this extract from it, namely sections 11 to 14.
What we actually are is pure awareness, and since pure awareness can never be an object of awareness, it cannot be known by anything other than itself, so knowing ourself as pure awareness means being pure awareness, as Bhagavan implies in verse 26 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
As Bhagavan implies by saying ‘தன்மயநிட்டை ஈது’ (taṉmaya-niṭṭhai īdu), ‘This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā’, this state in which we know ourself as we actually are just by being ourself as we actually are is what is called ‘தன்மயநிட்டை’ (taṉmaya-niṭṭhai), which is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term ‘तन्मयनिष्ठा’ (tanmaya-niṣṭhā), which is a compound of ‘तन्मय’ (tanmaya) and ‘निष्ठा’ (niṣṭhā). ‘तन्मय’ (tanmaya) is formed from the pronoun ‘तत्’ (tat), ‘that’, which refers to brahman, and the suffix ‘मय’ (maya), which means ‘made of’, ‘composed of’, ‘consisting of’ or ‘full of’, or in this context, ‘as’, ‘one with’, ‘identical with’ or ‘absorbed in’, and ‘निष्ठा’ (niṣṭhā) means ‘state’, ‘firmness’, ‘fixity’, ‘steadiness’, ‘steadfastness’, ‘firm adherence’ or ‘firm devotion’, so ‘तन्मयनिष्ठा’ (tanmaya-niṣṭhā) means ‘steadfastness as that’ and implies the state of being firmly fixed or established as ‘that’ (tat), namely brahman, the one infinite reality, which is what we always actually are.
We are always what we actually are, but so long as we rise as ego we seem to be something other than what we actually are, so ‘தான் ஆய் இருத்தல்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal), ‘being oneself’ or ‘being as oneself’, means being without rising as ego, and hence ‘தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām), ‘Being oneself alone is knowing oneself’, implies that in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we must cease rising as ego. However, it is equally true to say that in order to cease rising as ego we must be aware of ourself as we actually are, because the state of not rising as ego is the state of being as we actually are, and being as we actually are is knowing ourself as we actually are, so not rising as ego and being aware of ourself as we actually are are one and the same thing. In other words, the state of not rising as ego is itself the state of knowing and being what we actually are, as Bhagavan points out in verse 27 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம்’ (nāṉ udikkum thāṉam), ‘the place where I rises’, is our own being, which is what shines as our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so ‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடுதல்’ (nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍudal), ‘investigating the place where I rises’, implies investigating our own being, ‘I am’, which is the source from which we have risen as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’. ‘நாடாமல்’ (nāḍāmal) is a negative adverbial participle of the verb ‘நாடு’ (nāḍu), ‘investigate’, so it means ‘not investigating’ or ‘without investigating’, and hence ‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடாமல்’ (nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal) is an adverbial clause that means ‘without investigating the place where I rises’.
In the main clause of this second sentence, ‘நான் உதியா தன்னிழப்பை சார்வது எவன்?’ (nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ?), ‘உதியா’ (udiyā) is a negative adjectival participle that means ‘not rising’ or ‘which does not rise’, and ‘தன்னிழப்பை’ (taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai) is an accusative (second case) form of ‘தன்னிழப்பு’ (taṉ-ṉ-iṙappu), which is a compound of தன்’ (taṉ), the inflectional base of the generic pronoun ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘oneself’, and ‘இழப்பு’ (iṙappu), which means ‘loss’, ‘death’, ‘destruction’ or ‘annihilation’, so ‘தன்னிழப்பு’ (taṉ-ṉ-iṙappu) means ‘self-annihilation’ or ‘annihilation of oneself’, thereby implying annihilation of ego, and ‘நான் உதியா தன்னிழப்பு’ (nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappu) means ‘annihilation of oneself, in which I does not rise’, which is the state that he described in the first sentence as ‘நான் உதியாது உள்ள நிலை’ (nāṉ udiyādu uḷḷa nilai), ‘the state in which I [just] is without rising’. ‘சார்வது’ (sārvadu) is a participial noun that means ‘reaching’, ‘taking refuge in’, ‘merging in’ or ‘uniting with’, and ‘எவன்’ (evaṉ) is an interrogative adverb that means ‘how’ or ‘in what way’, so ‘சார்வது எவன்?’ (sārvadu evaṉ?) means ‘how reaching?’ or ‘how to reach?’. Therefore this second sentence, ‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடாமல், நான் உதியா தன் இழப்பை சார்வது எவன்?’ (nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal, nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ?), is a rhetorical question that means ‘Without investigating the place where I rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which I does not rise?’, thereby implying that the only means by which we can achieve (or take refuge in) annihilation of ego is investigating our own being, ‘I am’, by keenly attending to it.
In the third sentence, ‘சாராமல்’ (sārāmal) is a negative adverbial participle of the verb ‘சார்’ (sār), ‘reach’, ‘take refuge in’, ‘merge in’ or ‘unite with’, so it means ‘not reaching’ or ‘without reaching’, which in this context implies ‘without reaching [taking refuge or merging in] annihilation of oneself’. ‘தன்னிலை’ (taṉṉilai) is a compound of ‘தன்’ (taṉ) and ‘நிலை’ (nilai), in which ‘தன்’ (taṉ) is the inflectional base of the generic pronoun ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), which in this context means ‘oneself’, and ‘நிலை’ (nilai) means ‘state’. Since ‘தன்’ (taṉ) is not only the form that ‘தான்’ (tāṉ) takes as the first word in a compound, but is also often used as a genitive (sixth case) form of ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘தன்னிலை’ (taṉṉilai) can be taken to mean ‘the self-state’, ‘the state of oneself’ or ‘one’s own state’, but these meanings all amount to the same, because they imply our real state, namely the state of being as we actually are, without rising as ego. This is why he describes ‘தன்னிலை’ (taṉṉilai) as ‘தான் அது ஆம் தன்னிலை’ (tāṉ adu ām taṉṉilai), ‘one’s own state, in which oneself is that’, in which ‘அது’ (adu), ‘that’, refers to brahman, the infinite reality, which is what we always actually are. Therefore, this third sentence, ‘சாராமல், தான் அது ஆம் தன்னிலையில் நிற்பது எவன்?’ (sārāmal, tāṉ adu ām taṉṉilaiyil niṯpadu evaṉ?), ‘Without reaching, how to stand in one’s own state, in which oneself is that?’, is another rhetorical question, by which Bhagavan implies that the only means by which we can be as we actually are, namely as brahman, which is pure being-awareness (sat-cit), is reaching or taking refuge in the annihilation of ego.
Thus the overall implication of this verse is that we cannot be as we actually are without annihilating ego, and we cannot annihilate ego without investigating our own being, which is the source from which we have risen as ego. That is, ego is a false awareness of ourself, because as ego we are always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, which is not what we actually are, so our rising and standing as ego is what obscures our awareness of ourself as we actually are, and hence in order for us to know and to be what we actually are, we need to eradicate ego. Moreover, since it is just awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are, ego cannot be eradicated by any means other than our being aware of ourself as we actually are, and we cannot be aware of ourself as we actually are by any means other than investigating ourself by being keenly self-attentive.
2. Investigating what ego actually is alone is giving up everything
To the extent to which we attend to ourself, we as ego will subside, and if we attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever, we will be aware of ourself as pure awareness, namely awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, so since pure awareness is what we actually are, as soon as we are aware of ourself as such, ego will thereby be eradicated. Therefore being self-attentive is surrendering ourself completely, and since everything else, namely all forms, objects or phenomena, seems to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, surrendering ego is surrendering everything, as Bhagavan points out in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
Since we cannot investigate ourself without thereby surrendering ourself, we will not be willing to go deep in this practice of self-investigation unless we have wholehearted and all-consuming love to know and to be what we actually are. Therefore, since such love is the purest form of bhakti (devotion to God, who is our own being), Bhagavan often said ‘bhakti is the mother of jñāna’, thereby implying that without such love we cannot attain jñāna (awareness of ourself as we actually are).
If we are attracted to these teachings and interested in following this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, to that extent we already have at least a seed of the love required to follow this path to its conclusion, but the love that most of us have is still very inadequate, so how can we nurture and cultivate this seed so that it develops into the fully grown plant of all-consuming love that alone can enable us to sink deep within our own being and dissolve forever in the infinite clarity of pure being-awareness? As ego we have strong viṣaya-vāsanās, inclinations (vāsanās) to seek happiness or satisfaction in viṣayas (objects or phenomena), which are all things other than ourself, so the love to subside and dissolve forever in our own being, which is what is called sat-vāsanā (inclination to know and to be what we actually are), is the very antithesis of all viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that sprout in the form of likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears and suchlike. Therefore the only means to nurture and cultivate this love is to persevere patiently and tenaciously in trying to be self-attentive as much as we can, because every moment that we are self-attentive we are thereby strengthening our sat-vāsanā and correspondingly weakening our viṣaya-vāsanās.
That is, vāsanās have no strength of their own but derive their strength from us. Whenever we allow ourself to be swayed by any vāsanā, we are thereby giving it strength, and whenever we refrain from being swayed by it, we are thereby weakening it. Every moment that we cling firmly to self-attentiveness, we are allowing ourself to be swayed by our sat-vāsanā, so we are strengthening it, and we are refraining from being swayed by any viṣaya-vāsanās, so we are weakening them. Therefore being self-attentive is the most effective means by which we can nurture and cultivate our love to know and to be what we actually are.
However, when we try to be self-attentive, under the sway of our viṣaya-vāsanās our attention will be frequently diverted away from ourself towards other things, so each time this happens, we must try to turn our attention back to ourself and then firmly hold onto self-attentiveness, as Bhagavan explains in the first half of the sixth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
When we think of something or meditate on it, we are directing our mind or attention towards it, so since ātma-vicāra is directing our mind towards ourself, Bhagavan sometimes referred to it metaphorically as ‘thinking of ourself’ or ‘meditating on ourself’. For example, in the thirteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he uses the term ‘ஆன்மசிந்தனை’ (āṉma-cintaṉai), ‘self-thought’ or ‘thought of oneself’, and in the tenth paragraph he uses the term ‘சொரூபத்யானம்’ (sorūpa-dhyāṉam), ‘self-meditation’, ‘self-contemplation’ or ‘meditation on svarūpa’ (in which ‘svarūpa’ means ‘one’s own real nature’, thereby implying ourself as we actually are), and in both these cases these terms imply self-attentiveness, which is self-investigation (ātma-vicāra). Likewise, in the second sentence of this sixth paragraph he uses the term ‘நானார் என்னும் நினைவு’ (nāṉ-ār eṉṉum niṉaivu), ‘the thought who am I’, as a synonym for ‘நானார் என்னும் விசாரணை’ (nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇai), ‘the investigation who am I’, so it implies being self-attentive.
However, it is important to understand that whenever he uses a term that means ‘thought’ or ‘meditation’ to refer to ātma-vicāra, he uses them metaphorically, because thinking of or meditating on anything other than ourself is a mental activity, whereas attending to (‘thinking of’ or ‘meditating on’) ourself is a cessation of mental activity, since we as ego subside to the extent to which we attend to ourself, and hence all our mental activities subside along with us. Therefore ātma-vicāra is not literally a ‘thought’ or ‘meditation’ in the usual sense of a mental activity, even though it can be referred to metaphorically as ‘thought’ or ‘meditation’.
Therefore what Bhagavan implies in the second sentence of this sixth paragraph, ‘நானார் என்னும் நினைவு மற்ற நினைவுகளை யெல்லா மழித்துப் பிணஞ்சுடு தடிபோல் முடிவில் தானு மழியும்’ (nāṉ-ār eṉṉum niṉaivu maṯṟa niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām aṙittu-p piṇañ-cuḍu taḍi-pōl muḍivil tāṉ-um aṙiyum), ‘the thought who am I, destroying all other thoughts, will itself also in the end be destroyed like a corpse-burning stick’, is firstly that self-attentiveness will destroy all thoughts, including ego, which is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts, and secondly that by destroying ego, it will itself be destroyed like ‘பிணஞ்சுடு தடி’ (piṇañ-cuḍu taḍi), ‘a corpse-burning stick’, namely a stick that is used to stir a funeral pyre to ensure that the corpse is burnt completely. That is, attention is a function of the mind, because it is a focussing of our mind or awareness on something, and what attends to anything is ego, which is the knowing element of the mind, being the only element of it that is endowed with awareness, so when ego is destroyed in the fire of pure awareness, all its thoughts and its attention, including the attention it had focussed on itself, will be destroyed along with it, and what will then remain is only pure awareness, which is what we always actually are.
Whereas ‘நானார் என்று விசாரிப்பது’ (nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārippadu), ‘investigating who am I’, means keeping our mind fixed firmly on ourself, ‘யாருக்கு என்று விசாரிப்பது’ (yārukku eṉḏṟu vicārippadu), ‘investigating to whom’, means turning our mind back to ourself, the one to whom all other things appear, whenever it is diverted away from ourself towards anything else. Therefore the third sentence of this sixth paragraph, ‘பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தா லவற்றைப் பூர்த்தி பண்ணுவதற்கு எத்தனியாமல் அவை யாருக் குண்டாயின என்று விசாரிக்க வேண்டும்’ (piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl avaṯṟai-p pūrtti paṇṇuvadaṯku ettaṉiyāmal avai yārukku uṇḍāyiṉa eṉḏṟu vicārikka vēṇḍum), ‘If other thoughts rise, without trying to complete them it is necessary to investigate to whom they have occurred’, implies that whenever our attention is diverted away from ourself towards thoughts of other things, we should not allow it to dwell on such thoughts but should turn it back to ourself, the one to whom all such thoughts appear.
That is, every thought that arises should remind us to attend to ourself, so we should not be concerned about the appearance of thoughts but should be intent only on turning our attention back to ourself and keeping it fixed there. This is why in the next sentence Bhagavan asks rhetorically, ‘எத்தனை எண்ணங்க ளெழினு மென்ன?’ (ettaṉai eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙiṉum eṉṉa?), ‘However many thoughts rise, so what?’, because if we are concerned about the rising of thoughts, we are attending to them and not to ourself. Since no thoughts can appear unless we attend to them, to the extent to which we attend to ourself, we are thereby not giving them room to appear.
It is important to understand here that what Bhagavan means by words that mean ‘thoughts’, such as ‘நினைவுகள்’ (niṉaivugaḷ) and ‘எண்ணங்கள்’ (eṇṇaṅgaḷ), is not just mental chatter but phenomena of any kind whatsoever, because according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, and mental phenomena are what he means by ‘thoughts’. In other words, everything other than pure being-awareness (sat-cit) is a thought, so as he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’. Therefore when he says ‘பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தால்’ (piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl), ‘if other thoughts rise’, what he means is ‘if anything other than oneself appears’.
In order to turn our attention back to ourself whenever it begins to wander away towards anything else, we need to be extremely vigilant, as he implies by the adverb ‘ஜாக்கிரதையாய்’ (jāggirataiyāy), ‘wakefully’, ‘watchfully’, ‘vigilantly’, ‘alertly’ or ‘carefully’, at the beginning of the fifth sentence of this sixth paragraph: ‘ஜாக்கிரதையாய் ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே இது யாருக்குண்டாயிற்று என்று விசாரித்தால் எனக்கென்று தோன்றும்’ (jāggirataiyāy ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē idu yārukku uṇḍāyiṯṟu eṉḏṟu vicārittāl eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum), ‘Vigilantly, as soon as each thought emerges, if one investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me’. Here ‘ஜாக்கிரதையாய்’ (jāggirataiyāy), ‘vigilantly’, implies that we need to be vigilantly self-attentive, because if we are not sufficiently vigilant, our attention will be carried away by other thoughts before we notice that we have begun to lose our hold on self-attentiveness. If we are sufficiently vigilant, we will notice as soon as our self-attentiveness begins to slacken, thereby giving room to the rising of other thoughts, and as soon as we notice this, we should turn our attention back to ourself, the one to whom those other thoughts have appeared. Whenever we turn our attention back in this way, what will become clear is the ‘me’ to whom everything else appears, as he implies by saying ‘எனக்கென்று தோன்றும்’ (eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum), ‘it will be known as to me’ or ‘it will be clear: to me’.
Once this ‘me’ to whom everything else appears becomes clear, we should vigilantly hold on to it, thereby not allowing our attention to be diverted away towards anything else, and if we do so, our self-attentive mind will thereby subside back into our being, which its ‘birthplace’, the source from which it had arisen, as he says in the next sentence: ‘நானார் என்று விசாரித்தால் மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்’ (nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārittāl maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṯku-t tirumbi-viḍum), ‘If one investigates who am I, the mind will return to its birthplace’.
As explained above, whereas ‘யாருக்கு என்று விசாரிப்பது’ (yārukku eṉḏṟu vicārippadu), ‘investigating to whom’, means turning our attention back to ourself, the one to whom all other things appear, whenever it is diverted away towards anything else, ‘நானார் என்று விசாரிப்பது’ (nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārippadu), ‘investigating who am I’, means keeping our attention fixed firmly on ourself once we have turned it back. Therefore these two sentences, ‘ஜாக்கிரதையாய் ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே இது யாருக்குண்டாயிற்று என்று விசாரித்தால் எனக்கென்று தோன்றும். நானார் என்று விசாரித்தால் மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்’ (jāggirataiyāy ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē idu yārukku uṇḍāyiṯṟu eṉḏṟu vicārittāl eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum. nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārittāl maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṯku-t tirumbi-viḍum), ‘Vigilantly, as soon as each thought emerges, if one investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me. If one investigates who am I, the mind will return to its birthplace’, should not be taken to imply two distinct investigations or forms of investigation, but should be understood to be a description of the single seamless process of turning our attention back to ourself and then keeping it firmly fixed on ourself.
As a result of this seamless process, ‘மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்’ (maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṯku-t tirumbi-viḍum), ‘the mind will return to its birthplace’, meaning that it will subside back into the source from which it had risen, namely our own very being, our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, and hence ‘எழுந்த வெண்ணமு மடங்கிவிடும்’ (eṙunda v-eṇṇamum aḍaṅgi-viḍum), ‘the thought that had risen will also cease’, meaning that whatever had appeared when our attention was diverted away from ourself will cease to exist, because no such things can exist independent of the mind’s awareness of them, so when the mind subsides everything else will subside along with it.
By persistently and repeatedly practising this seamless process of turning our attention back to ourself whenever it is diverted away towards anything else, and then trying our best to keep it fixed firmly on ourself, our ability to hold onto self-attentiveness unwaveringly and thereby remain subsided in our being will increase, as he says in the next sentence: ‘இப்படிப் பழகப் பழக மனத்திற்குத் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி யதிகரிக்கின்றது’ (ippaḍi-p paṙaga-p paṙaga maṉattiṯku-t taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṯkum śakti y-adhikarikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases’.
‘தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி’ (taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṯkum śakti), ‘the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace’, is the power of love to be as we actually are without rising as ego to know or experience anything else. This love to be as we actually are is what is called sat-vāsanā, the inclination to just be, and it can be strengthened only by patient and persistence practice of self-attentiveness.
That is, as explained above, vāsanās (volitional inclinations) derive their strength from us to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them, so the way to strengthen any vāsanā is to allow ourself to be swayed by it, and the way to weaken it is to refrain from being swayed by it. When we are self-attentive, we are so under the sway of sat-vāsanā, so we are thereby strengthening it, and hence the only way to strengthen our sat-vāsanā is to persevere repeatedly in practising self-attentiveness, as Bhagavan implies by saying: ‘இப்படிப் பழகப் பழக மனத்திற்குத் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி யதிகரிக்கின்றது’ (ippaḍi-p paṙaga-p paṙaga maṉattiṯku-t taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṯkum śakti y-adhikarikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases’.
When we persistently try to be self-attentive, we are not only strengthening our sat-vāsanā but also weakening all our viṣaya-vāsanās (inclinations to seek happiness or satisfaction in objects or phenomena), because while we are self-attentive we are thereby not allowing ourself to be swayed by any viṣaya-vāsanās, as Bhagavan implies in the tenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
The key to success in this battle is wholehearted and all-consuming love to be as we actually are, and this love can be nurtured and nourished within us only by patient and persistent practice of self-attentiveness.
4. The love required to know and to be what we actually are sprouts and is nurtured in our heart by grace
As Bhagavan points out in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, the nature of ego is to ‘grasp form’, meaning to constantly attend to and be aware of things other than itself, because without ‘grasping form’ in this way, ego cannot rise, stand or flourish. Therefore, since ego cannot survive or thrive without constantly ‘grasping form’, and since ‘form’ means viṣayas (objects or phenomena), having strong viṣaya-vāsanās (inclinations to grasp forms or viṣayas) is the very nature of ego.
Having sat-vāsanā (inclination to grasp our own being), on the other hand, is contrary to the nature of ego, because to the extent to which we grasp our own being, which is the formless awareness ‘I am’, we as ego will subside and dissolve back into our being forever, thereby eradicating ego and all its progeny, namely all forms or phenomena (viṣayas), which seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego. Therefore, from where does sat-vāsanā originate? Whereas viṣaya-vāsanās originate from ego, because having such vāsanās is its nature, sat-vāsanā cannot originate from ego, because having this vāsanā is contrary to its nature. Therefore, whereas ego is the cause and origin of all viṣaya-vāsanās, the cause and origin of sat-vāsanā must be something that exists independent of ego, namely ātma-svarūpa, which is ourself as we actually are.
However, since ātma-svarūpa is pure being-awareness (sat-cit), how can it be the cause of anything? It may be the cause in the sense of upādāna kāraṇa (‘material’ or substantial cause), because it is the one real substance of which all other things are an appearance (in other words, it is the one thing that appears as all other things), but it cannot be a nimitta kāraṇa (efficient cause), because being a nimitta kāraṇa entails doing something, and ātma-svarūpa is pure being and therefore never does anything. In what sense, therefore, can ātma-svarūpa be the cause of sat-vāsanā?
As Bhagavan points out in the first paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘யாவருக்கும் தன்னிடத்திலேயே பரம பிரிய மிருப்பது’ (yāvarukkum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-ē-y-ē parama piriyam iruppadu), ‘for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself’, and the reason why we all naturally love ourself is that self-love is the very nature of ātma-svarūpa. That is, since ātma-svarūpa is not only infinite being (sat) and infinite awareness (cit) but also infinite happiness (ānanda), and since ‘பிரியத்திற்கு சுகமே காரணம்’ (piriyattiṯku sukham-ē kāraṇam), ‘happiness alone is the cause for love’, as he points out in the next clause of the same sentence, ātma-svarūpa naturally has infinite love for itself. In fact, it is love itself.
Therefore, since ātma-svarūpa is what we actually are, the love that we as ego naturally have for ourself is an inevitable reflection of the infinite love that we as we actually are have for ourself as we actually are. As ego we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, so we seem to be something other than the infinite being-awareness (sat-cit) that we actually are, but in the clear view of sat-cit there is no such separation or otherness, so it does not see us as anything other than itself, and hence it loves us as itself. This infinite love that we as we actually are have for ourself as we actually are is what we as ego experience as divine grace.
That is, sat-cit is the reality of both God and guru, so what is called the grace of God or guru is nothing but the infinite love that sat-cit has for us as itself. Therefore, since God or guru loves us as itself, the will of God or guru is that we should be infinitely happy, as it itself is, and in order for us to be infinitely happy, all that is required is that we cease rising as ego and thereby remain as we always actually are, namely as infinite love, which is sat-cit-ānanda, pure being-awareness-happiness.
In order for us to know and to be what we actually are, thereby ceasing to rise as ego ever again, we must have whole-hearted and all-consuming love to surrender ourself completely and thereby be as we actually are, and the seed that sprouts and matures into such love is sat-vāsanā. Therefore sat-vāsanā is the seed of love that is sown and nurtured in our heart by divine grace, which is the infinite love that God or guru has for us as itself.
Since infinite love is the very nature of God or guru, it need not do anything in order to sow and nurture this seed in our heart. Just by being as it is, without ever doing anything, it does everything that needs to be done. In other words, everything happens as it is meant to happen just by God being the infinite love that he is. This is why Bhagavan used to say that God does everything without ever doing anything, or as he expressed it in the fifteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, all the pañcakṛtyas (the five divine functions, namely creation, sustenance, dissolution, concealment and grace) happen ‘ஈசன் சன்னிதான விசேஷ மாத்திரத்தால்’ (īśaṉ saṉṉidhāṉa-viśēṣa-māttirattāl), ‘by just [or nothing more than] the special nature of the presence of God’, because ‘ஒரு கருமமு மவரை யொட்டாது’ (oru karumamum avarai y-oṭṭādu), ‘even one karma [action] does not adhere to him’, since he is pure being and therefore never does anything.
Therefore, as Bhagavan sometimes reminded us, grace is not something that will one day descend on us from above, but always exists in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so to avail ourself of its ever-available help, all we need do is turn within and lovingly attend to our own being. Since we can turn within and be self-attentive only under the sway of sat-vāsanā, and since sat-vāsanā is sown and nurtured in our heart only by grace, even our making effort to turn within and be self-attentive happens only by grace working in our heart in the form of sat-vāsanā, the love to know and to be what we actually are.
This is why Bhagavan used to say that grace is the beginning, the middle and the end. Grace is what attracts us to this path of self-investigation and self-surrender in the first place; it is what gives us the clarity and love to follow this path (meaning that it is what thereby guides us from within and nurtures and sustains our motivation); and eventually it is what will swallow entirely us in its infinite clarity of pure awareness.
Therefore we can always rely on the ever-available help and guidance of grace, but since it must work through us, we need to yield ourself to it by always trying our best to follow this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, as Bhagavan simultaneously assures and cautions us in the twelfth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
- Being as we actually are without rising as ego is knowing ourself as we actually are
- Investigating what ego actually is alone is giving up everything
- To go deep in this practice of self-investigation we require wholehearted and all-consuming love
- The love required to know and to be what we actually are sprouts and is nurtured in our heart by grace
What we actually are is pure awareness, and since pure awareness can never be an object of awareness, it cannot be known by anything other than itself, so knowing ourself as pure awareness means being pure awareness, as Bhagavan implies in verse 26 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
தானா யிருத்தலே தன்னை யறிதலாந்‘தான் ஆய் இருத்தல்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal) means ‘being oneself’ (or more literally, ‘being as oneself’), which implies being as we actually are, without rising as ego to know anything else, and ‘தன்னை அறிதல்’ (taṉṉai aṟidal) means ‘knowing oneself’, so ‘தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām) means ‘Being oneself alone is knowing oneself’, which implies that being as we actually are is itself knowing ourself as we actually are. Knowing anything other than ourself is a tripartite knowledge, because it entails three elements or factors (tripuṭī), namely ourself as the subject or knower (pramātā), something else as the object or thing known (pramēya), and a means by which we know it (pramāṇa), whereas knowing ourself entails only ourself and nothing else, because in self-knowledge or self-awareness we ourself are the knower, what is known and the means of knowing, as Bhagavan implies in the clause ‘தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால்’ (tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl), which means ‘by oneself being devoid of two’, ‘because of oneself being devoid of two’ or ‘because oneself is devoid of two’. That is, what we actually are is one and indivisible, so it is devoid of the fundamental duality of subject and object, knower and thing known, and also devoid of any possibility of being divided as two selves, one self as a subject to know the other self as an object. Not only can we not be divided as one self that knows and another self that is known, but even the means by which we know ourself is nothing other than ourself, because what we actually are is pure awareness, which knows itself just by being itself.
தானிரண் டற்றதா லுந்தீபற
தன்மய நிட்டையீ துந்தீபற.
tāṉā yiruttalē taṉṉai yaṟidalān
tāṉiraṇ ḍaṯṟadā lundīpaṟa
taṉmaya niṭṭhaiyī dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால். தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl. taṉmaya-niṭṭhai īdu.
English translation: Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is devoid of two. This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā.
As Bhagavan implies by saying ‘தன்மயநிட்டை ஈது’ (taṉmaya-niṭṭhai īdu), ‘This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā’, this state in which we know ourself as we actually are just by being ourself as we actually are is what is called ‘தன்மயநிட்டை’ (taṉmaya-niṭṭhai), which is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term ‘तन्मयनिष्ठा’ (tanmaya-niṣṭhā), which is a compound of ‘तन्मय’ (tanmaya) and ‘निष्ठा’ (niṣṭhā). ‘तन्मय’ (tanmaya) is formed from the pronoun ‘तत्’ (tat), ‘that’, which refers to brahman, and the suffix ‘मय’ (maya), which means ‘made of’, ‘composed of’, ‘consisting of’ or ‘full of’, or in this context, ‘as’, ‘one with’, ‘identical with’ or ‘absorbed in’, and ‘निष्ठा’ (niṣṭhā) means ‘state’, ‘firmness’, ‘fixity’, ‘steadiness’, ‘steadfastness’, ‘firm adherence’ or ‘firm devotion’, so ‘तन्मयनिष्ठा’ (tanmaya-niṣṭhā) means ‘steadfastness as that’ and implies the state of being firmly fixed or established as ‘that’ (tat), namely brahman, the one infinite reality, which is what we always actually are.
We are always what we actually are, but so long as we rise as ego we seem to be something other than what we actually are, so ‘தான் ஆய் இருத்தல்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal), ‘being oneself’ or ‘being as oneself’, means being without rising as ego, and hence ‘தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām), ‘Being oneself alone is knowing oneself’, implies that in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we must cease rising as ego. However, it is equally true to say that in order to cease rising as ego we must be aware of ourself as we actually are, because the state of not rising as ego is the state of being as we actually are, and being as we actually are is knowing ourself as we actually are, so not rising as ego and being aware of ourself as we actually are are one and the same thing. In other words, the state of not rising as ego is itself the state of knowing and being what we actually are, as Bhagavan points out in verse 27 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
நானுதியா துள்ளநிலை நாமதுவா யுள்ளநிலை‘நான்’ (nāṉ) is the nominative first person singular pronoun, ‘I’; ‘உதியாது’ (udiyādu) is a negative adverbial participle that means ‘not rising’ or ‘without rising’; ‘உள்ள’ (uḷḷa) is an adjectival participle that means ‘being’, ‘existing’ or ‘which is’; and ‘நிலை’ (nilai) means ‘state’, so ‘நான் உதியாது உள்ள நிலை’ (nāṉ udiyādu uḷḷa nilai) means ‘the I not rising being state’, ‘the state of I being without rising’ or ‘the state in which I is without rising’. ‘நாம்’ (nām) is one of the two forms of the nominative first person plural pronoun in Tamil, but whereas the other form, ‘நாங்கள்’ (nāṅgaḷ), means ‘we’ excluding whoever is being addressed, ‘நாம்’ (nām) means ‘we’ including whoever is being addressed, so Bhagavan often uses ‘நாம்’ (nām) as an inclusive form of the first person singular pronoun; ‘அது’ (adu) is a distal demonstrative pronoun that means ‘that’, referring here to brahman, which is ourself as we actually are; and ‘ஆய்’ (āy) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’ or ‘as’, so ‘நாம் அதுவாய் உள்ள நிலை’ (nām adu-v-āy uḷḷa nilai) means ‘the we as that being state’, ‘the state of we being as that’ or ‘the state in which we are as that’. Therefore the first sentence of this verse, ‘நான் உதியாது உள்ள நிலை நாம் அது ஆய் உள்ள நிலை’ (nāṉ udiyādu uḷḷa nilai nām adu-v-āy uḷḷa nilai), means ‘The state in which I [just] is without rising is the state in which we are as that’, thereby implying that, since we seem to be something other than that whenever we rise as ego, even though we are always actually that and never anything else, in order for us to be aware of ourself as that, we must just be without rising as ego.
நானுதிக்குந் தானமதை நாடாம — னானுதியாத்
தன்னிழப்பைச் சார்வதெவன் சாராமற் றானதுவாந்
தன்னிலையி னிற்பதெவன் சாற்று.
nāṉudiyā duḷḷanilai nāmaduvā yuḷḷanilai
nāṉudikkun thāṉamadai nāḍāma — ṉāṉudiyāt
taṉṉiṙappaic cārvadevaṉ sārāmaṯ ṟāṉaduvān
taṉṉilaiyi ṉiṯpadevaṉ sāṯṟu.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘நான்’ உதியாது உள்ள நிலை நாம் அது ஆய் உள்ள நிலை. ‘நான்’ உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடாமல், ‘நான்’ உதியா தன் இழப்பை சார்வது எவன்? சாராமல், தான் அது ஆம் தன் நிலையில் நிற்பது எவன்? சாற்று.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘nāṉ’ udiyādu uḷḷa nilai nām adu-v-āy uḷḷa nilai. ‘nāṉ’ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal, ‘nāṉ’ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ? sārāmal, tāṉ adu ām taṉ nilaiyil niṯpadu evaṉ? sāṯṟu.
English translation: The state in which ‘I’ is without rising is the state in which we are as that. Without investigating the place where ‘I’ rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which ‘I’ does not rise? Without reaching, how to stand in one’s own state, in which oneself is that? Say.
‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம்’ (nāṉ udikkum thāṉam), ‘the place where I rises’, is our own being, which is what shines as our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so ‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடுதல்’ (nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍudal), ‘investigating the place where I rises’, implies investigating our own being, ‘I am’, which is the source from which we have risen as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’. ‘நாடாமல்’ (nāḍāmal) is a negative adverbial participle of the verb ‘நாடு’ (nāḍu), ‘investigate’, so it means ‘not investigating’ or ‘without investigating’, and hence ‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடாமல்’ (nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal) is an adverbial clause that means ‘without investigating the place where I rises’.
In the main clause of this second sentence, ‘நான் உதியா தன்னிழப்பை சார்வது எவன்?’ (nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ?), ‘உதியா’ (udiyā) is a negative adjectival participle that means ‘not rising’ or ‘which does not rise’, and ‘தன்னிழப்பை’ (taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai) is an accusative (second case) form of ‘தன்னிழப்பு’ (taṉ-ṉ-iṙappu), which is a compound of தன்’ (taṉ), the inflectional base of the generic pronoun ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘oneself’, and ‘இழப்பு’ (iṙappu), which means ‘loss’, ‘death’, ‘destruction’ or ‘annihilation’, so ‘தன்னிழப்பு’ (taṉ-ṉ-iṙappu) means ‘self-annihilation’ or ‘annihilation of oneself’, thereby implying annihilation of ego, and ‘நான் உதியா தன்னிழப்பு’ (nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappu) means ‘annihilation of oneself, in which I does not rise’, which is the state that he described in the first sentence as ‘நான் உதியாது உள்ள நிலை’ (nāṉ udiyādu uḷḷa nilai), ‘the state in which I [just] is without rising’. ‘சார்வது’ (sārvadu) is a participial noun that means ‘reaching’, ‘taking refuge in’, ‘merging in’ or ‘uniting with’, and ‘எவன்’ (evaṉ) is an interrogative adverb that means ‘how’ or ‘in what way’, so ‘சார்வது எவன்?’ (sārvadu evaṉ?) means ‘how reaching?’ or ‘how to reach?’. Therefore this second sentence, ‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடாமல், நான் உதியா தன் இழப்பை சார்வது எவன்?’ (nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal, nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ?), is a rhetorical question that means ‘Without investigating the place where I rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which I does not rise?’, thereby implying that the only means by which we can achieve (or take refuge in) annihilation of ego is investigating our own being, ‘I am’, by keenly attending to it.
In the third sentence, ‘சாராமல்’ (sārāmal) is a negative adverbial participle of the verb ‘சார்’ (sār), ‘reach’, ‘take refuge in’, ‘merge in’ or ‘unite with’, so it means ‘not reaching’ or ‘without reaching’, which in this context implies ‘without reaching [taking refuge or merging in] annihilation of oneself’. ‘தன்னிலை’ (taṉṉilai) is a compound of ‘தன்’ (taṉ) and ‘நிலை’ (nilai), in which ‘தன்’ (taṉ) is the inflectional base of the generic pronoun ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), which in this context means ‘oneself’, and ‘நிலை’ (nilai) means ‘state’. Since ‘தன்’ (taṉ) is not only the form that ‘தான்’ (tāṉ) takes as the first word in a compound, but is also often used as a genitive (sixth case) form of ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘தன்னிலை’ (taṉṉilai) can be taken to mean ‘the self-state’, ‘the state of oneself’ or ‘one’s own state’, but these meanings all amount to the same, because they imply our real state, namely the state of being as we actually are, without rising as ego. This is why he describes ‘தன்னிலை’ (taṉṉilai) as ‘தான் அது ஆம் தன்னிலை’ (tāṉ adu ām taṉṉilai), ‘one’s own state, in which oneself is that’, in which ‘அது’ (adu), ‘that’, refers to brahman, the infinite reality, which is what we always actually are. Therefore, this third sentence, ‘சாராமல், தான் அது ஆம் தன்னிலையில் நிற்பது எவன்?’ (sārāmal, tāṉ adu ām taṉṉilaiyil niṯpadu evaṉ?), ‘Without reaching, how to stand in one’s own state, in which oneself is that?’, is another rhetorical question, by which Bhagavan implies that the only means by which we can be as we actually are, namely as brahman, which is pure being-awareness (sat-cit), is reaching or taking refuge in the annihilation of ego.
Thus the overall implication of this verse is that we cannot be as we actually are without annihilating ego, and we cannot annihilate ego without investigating our own being, which is the source from which we have risen as ego. That is, ego is a false awareness of ourself, because as ego we are always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, which is not what we actually are, so our rising and standing as ego is what obscures our awareness of ourself as we actually are, and hence in order for us to know and to be what we actually are, we need to eradicate ego. Moreover, since it is just awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are, ego cannot be eradicated by any means other than our being aware of ourself as we actually are, and we cannot be aware of ourself as we actually are by any means other than investigating ourself by being keenly self-attentive.
2. Investigating what ego actually is alone is giving up everything
To the extent to which we attend to ourself, we as ego will subside, and if we attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever, we will be aware of ourself as pure awareness, namely awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, so since pure awareness is what we actually are, as soon as we are aware of ourself as such, ego will thereby be eradicated. Therefore being self-attentive is surrendering ourself completely, and since everything else, namely all forms, objects or phenomena, seems to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, surrendering ego is surrendering everything, as Bhagavan points out in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு3. To go deep in this practice of self-investigation we require wholehearted and all-consuming love
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.
ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nāḍalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr.
பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nāḍal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.
English translation: If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.
Since we cannot investigate ourself without thereby surrendering ourself, we will not be willing to go deep in this practice of self-investigation unless we have wholehearted and all-consuming love to know and to be what we actually are. Therefore, since such love is the purest form of bhakti (devotion to God, who is our own being), Bhagavan often said ‘bhakti is the mother of jñāna’, thereby implying that without such love we cannot attain jñāna (awareness of ourself as we actually are).
If we are attracted to these teachings and interested in following this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, to that extent we already have at least a seed of the love required to follow this path to its conclusion, but the love that most of us have is still very inadequate, so how can we nurture and cultivate this seed so that it develops into the fully grown plant of all-consuming love that alone can enable us to sink deep within our own being and dissolve forever in the infinite clarity of pure being-awareness? As ego we have strong viṣaya-vāsanās, inclinations (vāsanās) to seek happiness or satisfaction in viṣayas (objects or phenomena), which are all things other than ourself, so the love to subside and dissolve forever in our own being, which is what is called sat-vāsanā (inclination to know and to be what we actually are), is the very antithesis of all viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that sprout in the form of likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears and suchlike. Therefore the only means to nurture and cultivate this love is to persevere patiently and tenaciously in trying to be self-attentive as much as we can, because every moment that we are self-attentive we are thereby strengthening our sat-vāsanā and correspondingly weakening our viṣaya-vāsanās.
That is, vāsanās have no strength of their own but derive their strength from us. Whenever we allow ourself to be swayed by any vāsanā, we are thereby giving it strength, and whenever we refrain from being swayed by it, we are thereby weakening it. Every moment that we cling firmly to self-attentiveness, we are allowing ourself to be swayed by our sat-vāsanā, so we are strengthening it, and we are refraining from being swayed by any viṣaya-vāsanās, so we are weakening them. Therefore being self-attentive is the most effective means by which we can nurture and cultivate our love to know and to be what we actually are.
However, when we try to be self-attentive, under the sway of our viṣaya-vāsanās our attention will be frequently diverted away from ourself towards other things, so each time this happens, we must try to turn our attention back to ourself and then firmly hold onto self-attentiveness, as Bhagavan explains in the first half of the sixth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
நானார் என்னும் விசாரணையினாலேயே மன மடங்கும்; நானார் என்னும் நினைவு மற்ற நினைவுகளை யெல்லா மழித்துப் பிணஞ்சுடு தடிபோல் முடிவில் தானு மழியும். பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தா லவற்றைப் பூர்த்தி பண்ணுவதற்கு எத்தனியாமல் அவை யாருக் குண்டாயின என்று விசாரிக்க வேண்டும். எத்தனை எண்ணங்க ளெழினு மென்ன? ஜாக்கிரதையாய் ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே இது யாருக்குண்டாயிற்று என்று விசாரித்தால் எனக்கென்று தோன்றும். நானார் என்று விசாரித்தால் மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்; எழுந்த வெண்ணமு மடங்கிவிடும். இப்படிப் பழகப் பழக மனத்திற்குத் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி யதிகரிக்கின்றது.As defined by Bhagavan in the sixteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is ‘சதாகாலமும் மனத்தை ஆத்மாவில் வைத்திருப்பது’ (sadā-kālam-um maṉattai ātmāvil vaittiruppadu), ‘always keeping the mind on oneself’, so this definition applies equally to ‘நானார் என்னும் விசாரணை’ (nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇai), ‘the investigation who am I’, which is a synonym of ātma-vicāra. Therefore the first sentence of this passage, ‘நானார் என்னும் விசாரணையினாலேயே மன மடங்கும்’ (nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇaiyiṉāl-ē-y-ē maṉam aḍaṅgum), ‘Only by the investigation who am I will the mind cease [or subside forever]’, implies that annihilation of mind (manōnāśa) can be achieved only by keeping our mind or attention always fixed firmly on our own being, ‘I am’.
nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇaiyiṉāl-ē-y-ē maṉam aḍaṅgum; nāṉ-ār eṉṉum niṉaivu maṯṟa niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām aṙittu-p piṇañ-cuḍu taḍi-pōl muḍivil tāṉ-um aṙiyum. piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl avaṯṟai-p pūrtti paṇṇuvadaṯku ettaṉiyāmal avai yārukku uṇḍāyiṉa eṉḏṟu vicārikka vēṇḍum. ettaṉai eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙiṉum eṉṉa? jāggirataiyāy ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē idu yārukku uṇḍāyiṯṟu eṉḏṟu vicārittāl eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum. nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārittāl maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṯku-t tirumbi-viḍum; eṙunda v-eṇṇamum aḍaṅgi-viḍum. ippaḍi-p paṙaga-p paṙaga maṉattiṯku-t taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṯkum śakti y-adhikarikkiṉḏṟadu.
Only by the investigation who am I will the mind cease; the thought who am I, destroying all other thoughts, will itself also in the end be destroyed like a corpse-burning stick. If other thoughts rise, without trying to complete them it is necessary to investigate to whom they have occurred. However many thoughts rise, so what? Vigilantly, as soon as each thought emerges, if one investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me. If one investigates who am I, the mind will return to its birthplace; the thought that had risen will also cease. When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases.
When we think of something or meditate on it, we are directing our mind or attention towards it, so since ātma-vicāra is directing our mind towards ourself, Bhagavan sometimes referred to it metaphorically as ‘thinking of ourself’ or ‘meditating on ourself’. For example, in the thirteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he uses the term ‘ஆன்மசிந்தனை’ (āṉma-cintaṉai), ‘self-thought’ or ‘thought of oneself’, and in the tenth paragraph he uses the term ‘சொரூபத்யானம்’ (sorūpa-dhyāṉam), ‘self-meditation’, ‘self-contemplation’ or ‘meditation on svarūpa’ (in which ‘svarūpa’ means ‘one’s own real nature’, thereby implying ourself as we actually are), and in both these cases these terms imply self-attentiveness, which is self-investigation (ātma-vicāra). Likewise, in the second sentence of this sixth paragraph he uses the term ‘நானார் என்னும் நினைவு’ (nāṉ-ār eṉṉum niṉaivu), ‘the thought who am I’, as a synonym for ‘நானார் என்னும் விசாரணை’ (nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇai), ‘the investigation who am I’, so it implies being self-attentive.
However, it is important to understand that whenever he uses a term that means ‘thought’ or ‘meditation’ to refer to ātma-vicāra, he uses them metaphorically, because thinking of or meditating on anything other than ourself is a mental activity, whereas attending to (‘thinking of’ or ‘meditating on’) ourself is a cessation of mental activity, since we as ego subside to the extent to which we attend to ourself, and hence all our mental activities subside along with us. Therefore ātma-vicāra is not literally a ‘thought’ or ‘meditation’ in the usual sense of a mental activity, even though it can be referred to metaphorically as ‘thought’ or ‘meditation’.
Therefore what Bhagavan implies in the second sentence of this sixth paragraph, ‘நானார் என்னும் நினைவு மற்ற நினைவுகளை யெல்லா மழித்துப் பிணஞ்சுடு தடிபோல் முடிவில் தானு மழியும்’ (nāṉ-ār eṉṉum niṉaivu maṯṟa niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām aṙittu-p piṇañ-cuḍu taḍi-pōl muḍivil tāṉ-um aṙiyum), ‘the thought who am I, destroying all other thoughts, will itself also in the end be destroyed like a corpse-burning stick’, is firstly that self-attentiveness will destroy all thoughts, including ego, which is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts, and secondly that by destroying ego, it will itself be destroyed like ‘பிணஞ்சுடு தடி’ (piṇañ-cuḍu taḍi), ‘a corpse-burning stick’, namely a stick that is used to stir a funeral pyre to ensure that the corpse is burnt completely. That is, attention is a function of the mind, because it is a focussing of our mind or awareness on something, and what attends to anything is ego, which is the knowing element of the mind, being the only element of it that is endowed with awareness, so when ego is destroyed in the fire of pure awareness, all its thoughts and its attention, including the attention it had focussed on itself, will be destroyed along with it, and what will then remain is only pure awareness, which is what we always actually are.
Whereas ‘நானார் என்று விசாரிப்பது’ (nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārippadu), ‘investigating who am I’, means keeping our mind fixed firmly on ourself, ‘யாருக்கு என்று விசாரிப்பது’ (yārukku eṉḏṟu vicārippadu), ‘investigating to whom’, means turning our mind back to ourself, the one to whom all other things appear, whenever it is diverted away from ourself towards anything else. Therefore the third sentence of this sixth paragraph, ‘பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தா லவற்றைப் பூர்த்தி பண்ணுவதற்கு எத்தனியாமல் அவை யாருக் குண்டாயின என்று விசாரிக்க வேண்டும்’ (piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl avaṯṟai-p pūrtti paṇṇuvadaṯku ettaṉiyāmal avai yārukku uṇḍāyiṉa eṉḏṟu vicārikka vēṇḍum), ‘If other thoughts rise, without trying to complete them it is necessary to investigate to whom they have occurred’, implies that whenever our attention is diverted away from ourself towards thoughts of other things, we should not allow it to dwell on such thoughts but should turn it back to ourself, the one to whom all such thoughts appear.
That is, every thought that arises should remind us to attend to ourself, so we should not be concerned about the appearance of thoughts but should be intent only on turning our attention back to ourself and keeping it fixed there. This is why in the next sentence Bhagavan asks rhetorically, ‘எத்தனை எண்ணங்க ளெழினு மென்ன?’ (ettaṉai eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙiṉum eṉṉa?), ‘However many thoughts rise, so what?’, because if we are concerned about the rising of thoughts, we are attending to them and not to ourself. Since no thoughts can appear unless we attend to them, to the extent to which we attend to ourself, we are thereby not giving them room to appear.
It is important to understand here that what Bhagavan means by words that mean ‘thoughts’, such as ‘நினைவுகள்’ (niṉaivugaḷ) and ‘எண்ணங்கள்’ (eṇṇaṅgaḷ), is not just mental chatter but phenomena of any kind whatsoever, because according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, and mental phenomena are what he means by ‘thoughts’. In other words, everything other than pure being-awareness (sat-cit) is a thought, so as he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’. Therefore when he says ‘பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தால்’ (piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl), ‘if other thoughts rise’, what he means is ‘if anything other than oneself appears’.
In order to turn our attention back to ourself whenever it begins to wander away towards anything else, we need to be extremely vigilant, as he implies by the adverb ‘ஜாக்கிரதையாய்’ (jāggirataiyāy), ‘wakefully’, ‘watchfully’, ‘vigilantly’, ‘alertly’ or ‘carefully’, at the beginning of the fifth sentence of this sixth paragraph: ‘ஜாக்கிரதையாய் ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே இது யாருக்குண்டாயிற்று என்று விசாரித்தால் எனக்கென்று தோன்றும்’ (jāggirataiyāy ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē idu yārukku uṇḍāyiṯṟu eṉḏṟu vicārittāl eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum), ‘Vigilantly, as soon as each thought emerges, if one investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me’. Here ‘ஜாக்கிரதையாய்’ (jāggirataiyāy), ‘vigilantly’, implies that we need to be vigilantly self-attentive, because if we are not sufficiently vigilant, our attention will be carried away by other thoughts before we notice that we have begun to lose our hold on self-attentiveness. If we are sufficiently vigilant, we will notice as soon as our self-attentiveness begins to slacken, thereby giving room to the rising of other thoughts, and as soon as we notice this, we should turn our attention back to ourself, the one to whom those other thoughts have appeared. Whenever we turn our attention back in this way, what will become clear is the ‘me’ to whom everything else appears, as he implies by saying ‘எனக்கென்று தோன்றும்’ (eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum), ‘it will be known as to me’ or ‘it will be clear: to me’.
Once this ‘me’ to whom everything else appears becomes clear, we should vigilantly hold on to it, thereby not allowing our attention to be diverted away towards anything else, and if we do so, our self-attentive mind will thereby subside back into our being, which its ‘birthplace’, the source from which it had arisen, as he says in the next sentence: ‘நானார் என்று விசாரித்தால் மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்’ (nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārittāl maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṯku-t tirumbi-viḍum), ‘If one investigates who am I, the mind will return to its birthplace’.
As explained above, whereas ‘யாருக்கு என்று விசாரிப்பது’ (yārukku eṉḏṟu vicārippadu), ‘investigating to whom’, means turning our attention back to ourself, the one to whom all other things appear, whenever it is diverted away towards anything else, ‘நானார் என்று விசாரிப்பது’ (nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārippadu), ‘investigating who am I’, means keeping our attention fixed firmly on ourself once we have turned it back. Therefore these two sentences, ‘ஜாக்கிரதையாய் ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே இது யாருக்குண்டாயிற்று என்று விசாரித்தால் எனக்கென்று தோன்றும். நானார் என்று விசாரித்தால் மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்’ (jāggirataiyāy ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē idu yārukku uṇḍāyiṯṟu eṉḏṟu vicārittāl eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum. nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārittāl maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṯku-t tirumbi-viḍum), ‘Vigilantly, as soon as each thought emerges, if one investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me. If one investigates who am I, the mind will return to its birthplace’, should not be taken to imply two distinct investigations or forms of investigation, but should be understood to be a description of the single seamless process of turning our attention back to ourself and then keeping it firmly fixed on ourself.
As a result of this seamless process, ‘மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்’ (maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṯku-t tirumbi-viḍum), ‘the mind will return to its birthplace’, meaning that it will subside back into the source from which it had risen, namely our own very being, our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, and hence ‘எழுந்த வெண்ணமு மடங்கிவிடும்’ (eṙunda v-eṇṇamum aḍaṅgi-viḍum), ‘the thought that had risen will also cease’, meaning that whatever had appeared when our attention was diverted away from ourself will cease to exist, because no such things can exist independent of the mind’s awareness of them, so when the mind subsides everything else will subside along with it.
By persistently and repeatedly practising this seamless process of turning our attention back to ourself whenever it is diverted away towards anything else, and then trying our best to keep it fixed firmly on ourself, our ability to hold onto self-attentiveness unwaveringly and thereby remain subsided in our being will increase, as he says in the next sentence: ‘இப்படிப் பழகப் பழக மனத்திற்குத் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி யதிகரிக்கின்றது’ (ippaḍi-p paṙaga-p paṙaga maṉattiṯku-t taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṯkum śakti y-adhikarikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases’.
‘தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி’ (taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṯkum śakti), ‘the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace’, is the power of love to be as we actually are without rising as ego to know or experience anything else. This love to be as we actually are is what is called sat-vāsanā, the inclination to just be, and it can be strengthened only by patient and persistence practice of self-attentiveness.
That is, as explained above, vāsanās (volitional inclinations) derive their strength from us to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them, so the way to strengthen any vāsanā is to allow ourself to be swayed by it, and the way to weaken it is to refrain from being swayed by it. When we are self-attentive, we are so under the sway of sat-vāsanā, so we are thereby strengthening it, and hence the only way to strengthen our sat-vāsanā is to persevere repeatedly in practising self-attentiveness, as Bhagavan implies by saying: ‘இப்படிப் பழகப் பழக மனத்திற்குத் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி யதிகரிக்கின்றது’ (ippaḍi-p paṙaga-p paṙaga maṉattiṯku-t taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṯkum śakti y-adhikarikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases’.
When we persistently try to be self-attentive, we are not only strengthening our sat-vāsanā but also weakening all our viṣaya-vāsanās (inclinations to seek happiness or satisfaction in objects or phenomena), because while we are self-attentive we are thereby not allowing ourself to be swayed by any viṣaya-vāsanās, as Bhagavan implies in the tenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
தொன்றுதொட்டு வருகின்ற விஷயவாசனைகள் அளவற்றனவாய்க் கடலலைகள் போற் றோன்றினும் அவையாவும் சொரூபத்யானம் கிளம்பக் கிளம்ப அழிந்துவிடும். அத்தனை வாசனைகளு மொடுங்கி, சொரூபமாத்திரமா யிருக்க முடியுமா வென்னும் சந்தேக நினைவுக்கு மிடங்கொடாமல், சொரூபத்யானத்தை விடாப்பிடியாய்ப் பிடிக்க வேண்டும். ஒருவன் எவ்வளவு பாபியாயிருந்தாலும், ‘நான் பாபியா யிருக்கிறேனே! எப்படிக் கடைத்தேறப் போகிறே’ னென்றேங்கி யழுதுகொண்டிராமல், தான் பாபி என்னு மெண்ணத்தையு மறவே யொழித்து சொரூபத்யானத்தி லூக்க முள்ளவனாக விருந்தால் அவன் நிச்சயமா யுருப்படுவான்.Since we weaken our viṣaya-vāsanās and strengthen our sat-vāsanā by this practice of self-attentiveness, if we persevere in trying to be self-attentive as much as possible, we will eventually reach a point where our sat-vāsanā will become stronger than all our viṣaya-vāsanās, and it is only then that we will have sufficient love to surrender ourself completely by clinging to self-attentiveness so firmly that we thereby subside completely and dissolve forever in svarūpa, our own being, our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is our ‘birthplace’ (piṟappiḍam), the source from which we have risen as ego. This final dissolution of ourself in pure being-awareness (sat-cit) is the complete eradication of ego, otherwise called manōnāśa (annihilation of the mind). Since all vāsanās are ego’s volitional inclinations, none of them can survive the eradication of ego, so its eradication is also called vāsanākṣaya (destruction of vāsanās). Therefore so long as viṣaya-vāsanās remain even to the slightest extent, ego has not yet been eradicated, so we as ego need to persevere in our practice of self-attentiveness, as Bhagavan says in the eleventh paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
toṉḏṟutoṭṭu varugiṉḏṟa viṣaya-vāsaṉaigaḷ aḷavaṯṟaṉavāy-k kaḍal-alaigaḷ pōl tōṉḏṟiṉum avai-yāvum sorūpa-dhyāṉam kiḷamba-k kiḷamba aṙindu-viḍum. attaṉai vāsaṉaigaḷum oḍuṅgi, sorūpa-māttiram-āy irukka muḍiyumā v-eṉṉum sandēha niṉaivukkum iḍam koḍāmal, sorūpa-dhyāṉattai viḍā-p-piḍiyāy-p piḍikka vēṇḍum. oruvaṉ evvaḷavu pāpiyāy irundālum, ‘nāṉ pāpiyāy irukkiṟēṉē; eppaḍi-k kaḍaittēṟa-p pōkiṟēṉ’ eṉḏṟēṅgi y-aṙudu-koṇḍirāmal, tāṉ pāpi eṉṉum eṇṇattaiyum aṟavē y-oṙittu sorūpa-dhyāṉattil ūkkam uḷḷavaṉāha v-irundāl avaṉ niścayamāy uru-p-paḍuvāṉ.
Even though viṣaya-vāsanās, which come from time immemorial, rise in countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when svarūpa-dhyāna [self-attentiveness] increases and increases. Without giving room even to the doubting thought ‘So many vāsanās ceasing, is it possible to be only as svarūpa [myself as I actually am]?’ it is necessary to cling tenaciously to svarūpa-dhyāna. However great a sinner one may be, if instead of lamenting and weeping ‘I am a sinner! How am I going to be saved?’ one completely rejects the thought that one is a sinner and is steadfast in self-attentiveness, one will certainly be reformed [transformed from rising as ego to being as svarūpa].
மனத்தின்கண் எதுவரையில் விஷயவாசனைக ளிருக்கின்றனவோ, அதுவரையில் நானா ரென்னும் விசாரணையும் வேண்டும். நினைவுகள் தோன்றத் தோன்ற அப்போதைக்கப்போதே அவைகளையெல்லாம் உற்பத்திஸ்தானத்திலேயே விசாரணையால் நசிப்பிக்க வேண்டும். அன்னியத்தை நாடாதிருத்தல் வைராக்கியம் அல்லது நிராசை; தன்னை விடாதிருத்தல் ஞானம். உண்மையி லிரண்டு மொன்றே. முத்துக்குளிப்போர் தம்மிடையிற் கல்லைக் கட்டிக்கொண்டு மூழ்கிக் கடலடியிற் கிடைக்கும் முத்தை எப்படி எடுக்கிறார்களோ, அப்படியே ஒவ்வொருவனும் வைராக்கியத்துடன் தன்னுள் ளாழ்ந்து மூழ்கி ஆத்மமுத்தை யடையலாம். ஒருவன் தான் சொரூபத்தை யடையும் வரையில் நிரந்தர சொரூப ஸ்மரணையைக் கைப்பற்றுவானாயின் அதுவொன்றே போதும். கோட்டைக்குள் எதிரிக ளுள்ளவரையில் அதிலிருந்து வெளியே வந்துகொண்டே யிருப்பார்கள். வர வர அவர்களையெல்லாம் வெட்டிக்கொண்டே யிருந்தால் கோட்டை கைவசப்படும்.Here ‘கோட்டை’ (kōṭṭai), ‘fortress’, is a metaphor for the heart, the deep centre of oneself, and the ‘எதிரிகள்’ (edirigaḷ), ‘enemies’, in it are a metaphor for the army of viṣaya-vāsanās that are constantly rising from within. If we hold fast to self-attentiveness, we will thereby be cutting down this army, meaning that we will be steadily weakening it, while simultaneously strengthening its opponent, namely our sat-vāsanā, our love for knowing and being what we actually are. Therefore if we persevere in being steadfastly self-attentive, we will thereby eventually capture the fortress, meaning that we will vanquish the army of viṣaya-vāsanās along with ego, its commander-in-chief, and thereby restore ourself to our natural state of being as we always actually are.
maṉattiṉgaṇ edu-varaiyil viṣaya-vāsaṉaigaḷ irukkiṉḏṟaṉavō, adu-varaiyil nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇai-y-um vēṇḍum. niṉaivugaḷ tōṉḏṟa-t tōṉḏṟa appōdaikkappōdē avaigaḷai-y-ellām uṯpatti-sthāṉattilēyē vicāraṇaiyāl naśippikka vēṇḍum. aṉṉiyattai nāḍādiruttal vairāggiyam alladu nirāśai; taṉṉai viḍādiruttal ñāṉam. uṇmaiyil iraṇḍum oṉḏṟē. muttu-k-kuḷippōr tam-m-iḍaiyil kallai-k kaṭṭi-k-koṇḍu mūṙki-k kaḍal-aḍiyil kiḍaikkum muttai eppaḍi eḍukkiṟārgaḷō, appaḍiyē o-vv-oruvaṉum vairāggiyattuḍaṉ taṉṉuḷ ḷ-āṙndu mūṙki ātma-muttai y-aḍaiyalām. oruvaṉ tāṉ sorūpattai y-aḍaiyum varaiyil nirantara sorūpa-smaraṇaiyai-k kai-p-paṯṟuvāṉ-āyiṉ adu-v-oṉḏṟē pōdum. kōṭṭaikkuḷ edirigaḷ uḷḷa-varaiyil adilirundu veḷiyē vandu-koṇḍē y-iruppārgaḷ. vara vara avargaḷai-y-ellām veṭṭi-k-koṇḍē y-irundāl kōṭṭai kaivaśa-p-paḍum.
As long as viṣaya-vāsanās exist within the mind, so long is the investigation who am I necessary. As and when thoughts appear, then and there it is necessary to annihilate them all by vicāraṇā [investigation or keen self-attentiveness] in the very place from which they arise. Not attending to anything other [than oneself] is vairāgya [dispassion or detachment] or nirāśā [desirelessness]; not leaving [or letting go of] oneself is jñāna [true knowledge or real awareness]. In truth [these] two [vairāgya and jñāna] are just one. Just as pearl-divers, tying stones to their waists and sinking, pick up pearls that are found at the bottom of the ocean, so each one, sinking deep within oneself with vairāgya [freedom from desire to be aware of anything other than oneself], may attain ātma-muttu [the ‘self-pearl’, namely ātma-svarūpa, the real nature of oneself]. Until one attains svarūpa, if one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa [self-remembrance], that alone is sufficient. So long as enemies are within the fortress, they will be continuously coming out from it. If one is continuously cutting all of them down as and when they come, the fortress will [eventually] be captured.
The key to success in this battle is wholehearted and all-consuming love to be as we actually are, and this love can be nurtured and nourished within us only by patient and persistent practice of self-attentiveness.
4. The love required to know and to be what we actually are sprouts and is nurtured in our heart by grace
As Bhagavan points out in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, the nature of ego is to ‘grasp form’, meaning to constantly attend to and be aware of things other than itself, because without ‘grasping form’ in this way, ego cannot rise, stand or flourish. Therefore, since ego cannot survive or thrive without constantly ‘grasping form’, and since ‘form’ means viṣayas (objects or phenomena), having strong viṣaya-vāsanās (inclinations to grasp forms or viṣayas) is the very nature of ego.
Having sat-vāsanā (inclination to grasp our own being), on the other hand, is contrary to the nature of ego, because to the extent to which we grasp our own being, which is the formless awareness ‘I am’, we as ego will subside and dissolve back into our being forever, thereby eradicating ego and all its progeny, namely all forms or phenomena (viṣayas), which seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego. Therefore, from where does sat-vāsanā originate? Whereas viṣaya-vāsanās originate from ego, because having such vāsanās is its nature, sat-vāsanā cannot originate from ego, because having this vāsanā is contrary to its nature. Therefore, whereas ego is the cause and origin of all viṣaya-vāsanās, the cause and origin of sat-vāsanā must be something that exists independent of ego, namely ātma-svarūpa, which is ourself as we actually are.
However, since ātma-svarūpa is pure being-awareness (sat-cit), how can it be the cause of anything? It may be the cause in the sense of upādāna kāraṇa (‘material’ or substantial cause), because it is the one real substance of which all other things are an appearance (in other words, it is the one thing that appears as all other things), but it cannot be a nimitta kāraṇa (efficient cause), because being a nimitta kāraṇa entails doing something, and ātma-svarūpa is pure being and therefore never does anything. In what sense, therefore, can ātma-svarūpa be the cause of sat-vāsanā?
As Bhagavan points out in the first paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘யாவருக்கும் தன்னிடத்திலேயே பரம பிரிய மிருப்பது’ (yāvarukkum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-ē-y-ē parama piriyam iruppadu), ‘for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself’, and the reason why we all naturally love ourself is that self-love is the very nature of ātma-svarūpa. That is, since ātma-svarūpa is not only infinite being (sat) and infinite awareness (cit) but also infinite happiness (ānanda), and since ‘பிரியத்திற்கு சுகமே காரணம்’ (piriyattiṯku sukham-ē kāraṇam), ‘happiness alone is the cause for love’, as he points out in the next clause of the same sentence, ātma-svarūpa naturally has infinite love for itself. In fact, it is love itself.
Therefore, since ātma-svarūpa is what we actually are, the love that we as ego naturally have for ourself is an inevitable reflection of the infinite love that we as we actually are have for ourself as we actually are. As ego we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, so we seem to be something other than the infinite being-awareness (sat-cit) that we actually are, but in the clear view of sat-cit there is no such separation or otherness, so it does not see us as anything other than itself, and hence it loves us as itself. This infinite love that we as we actually are have for ourself as we actually are is what we as ego experience as divine grace.
That is, sat-cit is the reality of both God and guru, so what is called the grace of God or guru is nothing but the infinite love that sat-cit has for us as itself. Therefore, since God or guru loves us as itself, the will of God or guru is that we should be infinitely happy, as it itself is, and in order for us to be infinitely happy, all that is required is that we cease rising as ego and thereby remain as we always actually are, namely as infinite love, which is sat-cit-ānanda, pure being-awareness-happiness.
In order for us to know and to be what we actually are, thereby ceasing to rise as ego ever again, we must have whole-hearted and all-consuming love to surrender ourself completely and thereby be as we actually are, and the seed that sprouts and matures into such love is sat-vāsanā. Therefore sat-vāsanā is the seed of love that is sown and nurtured in our heart by divine grace, which is the infinite love that God or guru has for us as itself.
Since infinite love is the very nature of God or guru, it need not do anything in order to sow and nurture this seed in our heart. Just by being as it is, without ever doing anything, it does everything that needs to be done. In other words, everything happens as it is meant to happen just by God being the infinite love that he is. This is why Bhagavan used to say that God does everything without ever doing anything, or as he expressed it in the fifteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, all the pañcakṛtyas (the five divine functions, namely creation, sustenance, dissolution, concealment and grace) happen ‘ஈசன் சன்னிதான விசேஷ மாத்திரத்தால்’ (īśaṉ saṉṉidhāṉa-viśēṣa-māttirattāl), ‘by just [or nothing more than] the special nature of the presence of God’, because ‘ஒரு கருமமு மவரை யொட்டாது’ (oru karumamum avarai y-oṭṭādu), ‘even one karma [action] does not adhere to him’, since he is pure being and therefore never does anything.
Therefore, as Bhagavan sometimes reminded us, grace is not something that will one day descend on us from above, but always exists in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so to avail ourself of its ever-available help, all we need do is turn within and lovingly attend to our own being. Since we can turn within and be self-attentive only under the sway of sat-vāsanā, and since sat-vāsanā is sown and nurtured in our heart only by grace, even our making effort to turn within and be self-attentive happens only by grace working in our heart in the form of sat-vāsanā, the love to know and to be what we actually are.
This is why Bhagavan used to say that grace is the beginning, the middle and the end. Grace is what attracts us to this path of self-investigation and self-surrender in the first place; it is what gives us the clarity and love to follow this path (meaning that it is what thereby guides us from within and nurtures and sustains our motivation); and eventually it is what will swallow entirely us in its infinite clarity of pure awareness.
Therefore we can always rely on the ever-available help and guidance of grace, but since it must work through us, we need to yield ourself to it by always trying our best to follow this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, as Bhagavan simultaneously assures and cautions us in the twelfth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
கடவுளும் குருவும் உண்மையில் வேறல்லர். புலிவாயிற் பட்டது எவ்வாறு திரும்பாதோ, அவ்வாறே குருவினருட்பார்வையிற் பட்டவர்கள் அவரால் ரக்ஷிக்கப்படுவரே யன்றி யொருக்காலும் கைவிடப்படார்; எனினும், குரு காட்டிய வழிப்படி தவறாது நடக்க வேண்டும்.
kaḍavuḷ-um guru-v-um uṇmaiyil vēṟallar. puli-vāyil paṭṭadu evvāṟu tirumbādō, avvāṟē guruviṉ-aruḷ-pārvaiyil paṭṭavargaḷ avarāl rakṣikka-p-paḍuvarē y-aṉḏṟi y-oru-k-kāl-um kaiviḍa-p-paḍār; eṉiṉum, guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi-p-paḍi tavaṟādu naḍakka vēṇḍum.
God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that guru has shown.
Más info en https://ift.tt/c9nS62L / Tfno. & WA 607725547 Centro MENADEL (Frasco Martín) Psicología Clínica y Tradicional en Mijas. #Menadel #Psicología #Clínica #Tradicional #MijasPueblo
*No suscribimos necesariamente las opiniones o artículos aquí compartidos. No todo es lo que parece.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario